Ship of Fools: MW 2975 Clerical attire

Thread: MW 2975 Clerical attire Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030472

Posted by Lincoln Imp (# 17123) on :

Just catching up with the reports and notice that the clerical attire worn by the cast in the picture in this report is described as "cotta and black stole". Have our brethren across the pond had a liturgical garb language reform, or am I just ignorant? We'd call this outfit "surplice and black (preaching) scarf".

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

The report being referred is the Ashes to Go event that Miss Amanda attended.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Surplice, yes. I'm always confusing the two. But I'm not so sure about the preaching scarf. I think it was the stole from his black eucharistic set.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

I can understand if it were a scarf, but a black stole seems like a bizarre choice for Ash Wednesday (either violet or Lenten array would be more understandable).

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

No - defintely a scarf. Too wide for a stole - and stoles tend to have little crosses embroidered on them at the ends.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

Certainly looks like a scarf to me, but never mind all that. What on earth is he wearing on his head? [Eek!]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Surplice, yes. I'm always confusing the two.

I think it's only Anglicans that perceive a difference. A cotta is a surplice, albeit a particular style of one. I suspect it's because that style is associated with continental Catholicism and the long-sleeved full type with traditional Anglicanism that the two names have developed different identities.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
What on earth is he wearing on his head?

A biretta is not enough to protect one from the Phoenix sunshine.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Certainly looks like a scarf to me, but never mind all that. What on earth is he wearing on his head?

I call it a surplice with a black scarf, as recommended by the Blessed Percy. The headgear is certainly the local version of the sombrero ecclesiastico and one can only laud the use of indigenous headgear.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Definitely surplice with black scarf - and is that a black cassock underneath? A bit hard to tell in the photo. Cassock, surplice and scarf would have been standard vesting in low-church Sydney when I was growing up, and decades beforehand. Not quite as common now.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Yes, he was wearing a cassock. St. Mary's is Anglo-Catholic through and through.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Thanks. As I said, it's a bit hard to tell in the photo. White cass-albs are more common A-C wear here these days, but black has not disappeared. The black also remains in traditional low-church Sydney parishes.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I can understand if it were a scarf, but a black stole seems like a bizarre choice for Ash Wednesday (either violet or Lenten array would be more understandable).

Yes, black for Ash Wednesday is (or was) a Lutheran peculiarity.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
St. Mary's is Anglo-Catholic through and through.

So what's he doing wearing suplice and scarf then?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
St. Mary's is Anglo-Catholic through and through.
So what's he doing wearing suplice and scarf then?

If it's not a sacramental service, isn't that what he should be wearing?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Strictly speaking I think Enoch is right.

Nonetheless, I was at a funeral this week and although the two Readers (C of E) wore blue scarfs, all the clergy wore purple stoles.

I can't remember seeing a black scarf other than at Evensong (and in the past Mattins).

[ 21. April 2016, 09:18: Message edited by: venbede ]

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
St. Mary's is Anglo-Catholic through and through.
So what's he doing wearing suplice and scarf then?
If it's not a sacramental service, isn't that what he should be wearing?

Cassock & cotta with nothing around the neck is usual

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

I don't think a stole would have been inappropriate, although I have seen ashes imposed by priests only in cassock.

Interestingly, at this year's Good Friday service at St. Mary's, the clergy wore purple.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Interestingly, at this year's Good Friday service at St. Mary's, the clergy wore purple.

It just gets worse [Disappointed]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The old colour was black - but they changed into purple for the Communion at the end - maybe that's why.

But I'd prefer they entered the modern world and wear red.

RE - ashing not being sacramental - well it is in a way as is the blessing of holy water, especially considering that ashing usually takes place during mass.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

Elsewhere in Phoenix the Cathedral clergy wore cassocks with purple stoles to give Ashes to Go at the Light Rail stop next to the Cathedral.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Are people saying:-
- This was wrong? or
- This is a legitimate option, even if other people, sometimes from different ecclesial communities, do something different? or just
- This isn't what dear Father Spikey-Burke who is the only person who really understand these things (or, for ordained shipmates, what I) would have done?

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The old colour was black - but they changed into purple for the Communion at the end

Well, only from 1955-69.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

The most moving Good Friday service I ever witnessed had the clergy in cassocks only up until communion, when the priest donned a white stole and the subdeacon a white humeral veil for carrying in the reserved eucharist.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I'm accustomed to seeing clergy in eucharistic vestments. I think it matters a lot what clergy wear, for services and as walking out dress. But I'm afraid these discussions about whether red or purple or white stoles are more authentic or meaningful for a particular occasion make me want to put the clergy in cassock, surplice, and scarf for everything. Just me, I suppose, getting less patient with 'fiddly bits' as I get older.

Posted by Lincoln Imp (# 17123) on :

A few years ago we had a Bishop who proscribed alb and stole at the Chrism Mass for all except the Celebrant so that the females in procession could not be identified as priests. It was a very colourful occasion with everyone in choir dress. The women of AC tradition made their point by wearing cottas which count as Eucharistic garments. The surplice does not.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln Imp:
The women of AC tradition made their point by wearing cottas which count as Eucharistic garments. The surplice does not.

Eh? How can that be, they are just different forms of the same garment, both used as choir dress? Okay, RC servers often wear cotta during the Mass, but this doesn't require them to be in holy orders...

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The old colour was black - but they changed into purple for the Communion at the end
Well, only from 1955-69.

What colour was it before 1955?

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

Good Friday had been celebrated in black vestments through the Liturgy through 1955, when the Holy Week reforms of Pius XII were promulgated in November of that year. It was changed to black (sans chasuble, with black cope during the solemn prayers) until communion, when violet chazzie (and dalmatic/tunicle) were put on. In 1970, red began to be worn. Thus, from 1956-1969, the black/violet was in effect. Communities that use the 1962 missal (a growing number, thanks to an ever-increasing supply of FSSP and other priests) continue to use the black and violet scheme.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln Imp:
A few years ago we had a Bishop who proscribed alb and stole at the Chrism Mass for all except the Celebrant so that the females in procession could not be identified as priests. It was a very colourful occasion with everyone in choir dress. The women of AC tradition made their point by wearing cottas which count as Eucharistic garments. The surplice does not.

Doesn't a stole identify someone as a priest? (Whereas I've never considered a cotta to be considered a priestly garment.)

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

I spotted the failure to differentiate between surplice and cotta; I was tempted to write the OP starting this discussion, but somehow, I did not proceed.

One thing I can add, is that surplice is short for super-pelice, meaning over the skin - the origin being from arctic regions, where the spacious wide-flowing white robe was needed. Cotta on the other hand, is an Italian word for cut; hence the much shorter robe or vestment.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

And alb and stole isn't choir dress, is it? Surplice and scarf (or the episcopal equivalent) is. Alb & stole is just half-dressed euchies.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:

quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln Imp:
The women of AC tradition made their point by wearing cottas which count as Eucharistic garments. The surplice does not.
Eh? How can that be, they are just different forms of the same garment, both used as choir dress? Okay, RC servers often wear cotta during the Mass, but this doesn't require them to be in holy orders...

When I attended Holy Communion after my confirmation, the priest wore surplice and stole. Pity, but there we are. Although I got used to eucharistic vestments on a Sunday, I was quite shocked to see them worn at a weekday said celebration.

In the past in the C of E, a surplice would be required for clergy at diocesan occasions as evangelicals would not wear anything else.

Not that they bother to do that nowadays and an evangelical archbishop gladly wears a chasuble.

'Igh church clergy might wear a cotta on such occasions as a shibboleth, but on consideration, that isn't a very catholic thing to do.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln Imp:
A few years ago we had a Bishop who proscribed alb and stole at the Chrism Mass for all except the Celebrant so that the females in procession could not be identified as priests. It was a very colourful occasion with everyone in choir dress. The women of AC tradition made their point by wearing cottas which count as Eucharistic garments. The surplice does not.
Doesn't a stole identify someone as a priest? (Whereas I've never considered a cotta to be considered a priestly garment.)

Lincoln Imp said proscribed rather than prescribed - hence, the stole was banned for everyone (except the celebrant), presumably leading to an outbreak of brightly coloured academic hoods!

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Well spotted. Makes my comment redundant- thank you.

Posted by Lincoln Imp (# 17123) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
One thing I can add, is that surplice is short for super-pelice, meaning over the skin - the origin being from arctic regions, where the spacious wide-flowing white robe was needed. Cotta on the other hand, is an Italian word for cut; hence the much shorter robe or vestment.

Went to Iceland a while ago in the autumn, and the cassock-albs and chasubles were double-lined and made from wool to combat the cold. No cottas there! And baptisms are still often done in the home by the priest - a left-over from of old when it would have been too dangerous to travel with an infant through ice and blizzards on foot or horseback to get to church. Now that's what I call "visiting".

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

A change from here, where priests will apologise for not wearing a chasuble in weather that's too hot - as happened to us one Ash Wednesday service when it was still 37 at 7.00 pm.

Posted by Signaller (# 17495) on :

Depending on the service, our clergy wear cassock, surplice, scarf and hood, or street clothes- but we are very Low. Anything more elaborate would be seen as Next Stop Rome.

And what are these liturgical colours that exercise so many of you? [Big Grin]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Signaller:
And what are these liturgical colours that exercise so many of you?

The same ones that the Baby Jesus uses in his coloring book.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
In the past in the C of E, a surplice would be required for clergy at diocesan occasions as evangelicals would not wear anything else.

Evangelicals used to tend to wear shorter surplices. The one pictured is full. Very English.

Never understood cottas. Ridiculous party badge. Unlike a lovely flowing full English cathedral surplice. >sigh<

But as you say people wear all sorts these days.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
In the past in the C of E, a surplice would be required for clergy at diocesan occasions as evangelicals would not wear anything else.

What ... nothing else at all? Surely a cassock would also have been required! [Devil]

(Reminds me of the invitations I used to get to a yearly function which stated "Dress Optional" - which is capable of at least three interpretations!)

[ 25. April 2016, 07:46: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Oxbridge fellows used to wear surplices without cassocks in chapel.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

Some still do. The sort that are open down the front and have a single button at the neck.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Good Friday had been celebrated in black vestments through the Liturgy through 1955, when the Holy Week reforms of Pius XII were promulgated in November of that year. It was changed to black (sans chasuble, with black cope during the solemn prayers) until communion, when violet chazzie (and dalmatic/tunicle) were put on. In 1970, red began to be worn. Thus, from 1956-1969, the black/violet was in effect. Communities that use the 1962 missal (a growing number, thanks to an ever-increasing supply of FSSP and other priests) continue to use the black and violet scheme.

And since the edition of the American Missal we use predates 1955, it's black, black, and nothing but black all the way through for us.

Where did the custom of violet at funerals come from, anyway?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I don't understand black on Good Friday. It's not Jesus's funeral, it's his victory celebration. Albeit only the beginning, hence red not white/gold.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Oxbridge fellows used to wear surplices without cassocks in chapel.

As did fellows, scholars, and choristers at Trinity College, Dublin.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

In our rite, there is the altar service (including the reading of the Passion), the solemn collects, the veneration of the Cross, and then the communion from the presanctified elements. No Eucharist is celebrated.

Although it's true that Christ's victory necessitated the apparent defeat of Good Friday, nevertheless the death of Jesus is an occasion of mourning--not least because it was for our misdeeds that he was killed. So for me at least black seems entirely and exclusively appropriate.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I don't understand black on Good Friday. It's not Jesus's funeral, it's his victory celebration. Albeit only the beginning, hence red not white/gold.

See Fr. Weber's excellent explanation above. Black has many, many centuries of use behind it on Good Friday--and indeed, at all Masses for the Dead---and if anything, the question becomes why mid and late 20th century liturgical thinkers would see fit to overthrow such a thing so suddenly, and replace it with something without much precedent.

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Where did the custom of violet at funerals come from, anyway?

The 1970 Roman Missal provides the option of using white, violet or black at Masses for the Dead. I'm with you; black is the way to go.

[ 25. April 2016, 21:00: Message edited by: Ceremoniar ]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
black is the way to go.

Now, if only people will stop wearing it at weddings. Or is marriage a fate worse than death? [Frown]

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
Some still do. The sort that are open down the front and have a single button at the neck.

Only some colleges (at least in Cambs). And of course no need to wear a black cassock, as you'll already be wearing a (very probably) black gown.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

I have never seen a fellow's/scholar's surplice over an academic gown.

In the University Church, on occasions when the VC and Proctors wear surplices (which I think is only at the Latin Communion), they don't wear their fancy gowns (but of course they wear their hoods).

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
black is the way to go.
Now, if only people will stop wearing it at weddings. Or is marriage a fate worse than death?

TV weddings are almost invariably performed by a clergyperson in black gown and purple stole, leading me to assume that in TV Land, everyone is Presbyterian and it's always Advent or Lent.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
TV weddings are almost invariably performed by a clergyperson in black gown and purple stole, leading me to assume that in TV Land, everyone is Presbyterian and it's always Advent or Lent.

What irritates me is the order of words in "Till death do us part." And apparently "You may now kiss the bride" is in the Book of TV Prayer rite.

[Edited to fix code and correct erroneous attribution.]

[ 27. April 2016, 12:18: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
TV weddings are almost invariably performed by a clergyperson in black gown and purple stole, leading me to assume that in TV Land, everyone is Presbyterian and it's always Advent or Lent.

Nah. A Presbyterian, at least south of the border, would wear a white stole for a wedding, even in Advent or Lent.

Though come to think of it, I think it's usually white or tapestry stoles I see in TV weddings. So maybe you are on to something.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
What irritates me is the order of words in "Till death do us part." And apparently "You may now kiss the bride" is in the Book of TV Prayer rite.

I don't know where that comes from, but it was unknown in England 40 years ago. I can only assume it was originally used in some place where people both both spoke English AND the couple would not even have been allowed to kiss each other, yet alone do any other naughty things, until they were married.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
TV weddings are almost invariably performed by a clergyperson in black gown and purple stole, leading me to assume that in TV Land, everyone is Presbyterian and it's always Advent or Lent.
What irritates me is the order of words in "Till death do us part."

I have to admit that I've never given it a second thought: it is precisely the same word order as in our prayer book. (Mind you, I've never actually attended a BCP wedding. In fact, I'm not sure I've been to an Anglican wedding at all!)

[Edited to fix code and correct erroneous attribution.]

[ 27. April 2016, 12:21: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
in TV Land, everyone is Presbyterian and it's always Advent or Lent.

And that it's OK to get married during Lent.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Who says you can't? We did, and no-one batted an eyelid.

We had nice flowers, too!

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
in TV Land, everyone is Presbyterian and it's always Advent or Lent.
And that it's OK to get married during Lent.

Well, "OK" is a bit strong: it's certainly not encouraged, but it's only forbidden (in Western Catholicism, anyway) on Good Friday and Holy Saturday.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
I have to admit that I've never given it a second thought: it is precisely the same word order as in our prayer book. (Mind you, I've never actually attended a BCP wedding. In fact, I'm not sure I've been to an Anglican wedding at all!)

Can you point a link to that liturgy? I can't find any Anglican prayerbook which gives the words in that order. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you've written above or something..

And, fwiw, I was also married in Lent. And despite being more Anglican now than I was on that day, I wouldn't think twice about the appropriateness of a wedding on any day, including Good Friday.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

The Solemnization of Matrimony:

quote:
I N. take thee N. to be my wedded wife (husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part, according to God’s holy ordinance; and thereto I give thee my troth.

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:

And apparently "You may now kiss the bride" is in the Book of TV Prayer rite.

Even more redundant since the blushing bride is now so often attended by her own offspring, suggesting that the first kiss may actually have happened some time ago....

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
What irritates me is the order of words in "Till death do us part." And apparently "You may now kiss the bride" is in the Book of TV Prayer rite.
I don't know where that comes from, but it was unknown in England 40 years ago. I can only assume it was originally used in some place where people both both spoke English AND the couple would not even have been allowed to kiss each other, yet alone do any other naughty things, until they were married.

The reason I object to it (besides its egregious naffness) is the sexism. 'You may kiss each other' (while naff, redundant and unnecessary) at least treats the partners as equal. (And, dead horses and the Anglican Communion willing, there might not even be a bride, or there might be two of them.)

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
The Solemnization of Matrimony:

quote:
I N. take thee N. to be my wedded wife (husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part, according to God’s holy ordinance; and thereto I give thee my troth.

The 1662 BCP (The Prayer Book) has 'till death us do part.'

[ 27. April 2016, 16:21: Message edited by: Angloid ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The reason I object to it (besides its egregious naffness) is the sexism. 'You may kiss each other' (while naff, redundant and unnecessary) at least treats the partners as equal.

Agreed. I also bridle at "This is the bride's special day" - that wouldn't be possible if there wasn't a groom, having his special day too.

[Pedantic point: if it's redundant, then surely it's unnecessary (not to mention tautologous) to say that it's unnecessary as well ... ] [Devil]

[ 27. April 2016, 16:23: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I thought that as I was typing it. But adjectives like that usually come in threes!

Posted by Lincoln Imp (# 17123) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

The reason I object to it (besides its egregious naffness) is the sexism. 'You may kiss each other' (while naff, redundant and unnecessary) at least treats the partners as equal.

My vicar refuses to use the words "who giveth this woman to be married to this man?" and their CW equivalent for that very reason. Instead she says "who brings..."

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
[Marriage during Lent] is only forbidden (in Western Catholicism, anyway) on Good Friday and Holy Saturday.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia: "Marriages in the Greek Church take place after the celebration of the Liturgy, and, as in the West, the season of Lent is a forbidden time."

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

Ah well, in 1911 it may well have been!

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The 1662 BCP (The Prayer Book) has 'till death us do part.'

The Prayer Book also doesn't say anything about weddings being forbidden in Lent.

Actually, having just checked, the 1979 BCP doesn't say anything about weddings in Lent either. Our curate recently proclaimed that the spate of baptisms we are subjected to (I mean, celebrating) is because of the back-log built up over Lent, during which we "do not marry or baptize."

So where does this Lenten-prohibition come from?

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The 1662 BCP (The Prayer Book) has 'till death us do part.'
The Prayer Book also doesn't say anything about weddings being forbidden in Lent.

Actually, having just checked, the 1979 BCP doesn't say anything about weddings in Lent either. Our curate recently proclaimed that the spate of baptisms we are subjected to (I mean, celebrating) is because of the back-log built up over Lent, during which we "do not marry or baptize."

So where does this Lenten-prohibition come from?

As far as I can tell, marriages in Lent are prohibited nowhere, other than on Good Friday and Holy Saturday in the RC Church. What's recommended in liturgical manuals is that those planning a Lent wedding consider the season and keep the celebration at a level that respects the quieter and more austere tone. I'd imagine most couples planning a wedding wouldn't want to follow that suggestion so will either want to ignore it or take the hint and look for a date without such constraints, however unofficial and nonbinding they may be.

A parish that wants to follow Ritual Notes (though no parish must do so) will find this on p. 351 (11th ed.):

quote:
Marriage should not be solemnized during the "closed seasons," i.e. from Advent Sunday to Christmas day, and from Ash Wednesday to Easter day, all inclusive. This does not mean that weddings are altogether forbidden in those seasons, for marriage (when in the opinion of the bishop there is sufficient justification) may at all times be lawfully and canonically contracted; and recent rulings now permit the nuptial blessing to be given at all times, even in Advent and Lent, except on the last three days of Holy week and on All Souls' day. If marriage is contracted in such circumstances the customary social festivities should be omitted and all display avoided.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Although I can see, and would agree, that baptisms should be held at Easter, I've never heard of any rule that they cannot take place in Lent. I'd have thought that was unlikely bearing in mind the high risk of infant mortality particularly in the past.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Of course, while the northern hemisphere weather in Advent and Lent is likely to be on the contrary side, south of the equator is the opposite. It's a prime time when very many weddings these days are held in parks and other outdoor locations.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Can you have a church wedding out of doors in Australia?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

If by "church", you mean conducted by clergy, yes a ceremony can be outdoors, and it does not have to be on church property either.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Although I can see, and would agree, that baptisms should be held at Easter, I've never heard of any rule that they cannot take place in Lent. I'd have thought that was unlikely bearing in mind the high risk of infant mortality particularly in the past.

I have a child that was baptized during Lent. I was actually a bit surprised that it was OK - the Lent date was convenient for us, because it meant we could get all the family there, so I made a rather tentative enquiry to our (C of E, A-C) priest, and was told "that's completely fine - which weekend were you wanting?"

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
If by "church", you mean conducted by clergy, yes a ceremony can be outdoors, and it does not have to be on church property either.

But would it have "legal" or "civil" validity? Or would it basically be a "blessing"?

In Britain it would be the latter ... weddings can only be legal if carried out in registered buildings. (I'm not sure if that would extend, say, to the gardens or churchyard of a church, though).

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Really, there are only "civil" weddings here, at least as I understand your post. They gain their validity from being carried out by a person who is an authorised celebrant under the Marriage Act, and where they are carried out is irrelevant. Any religious aspect is an addition with no effect on validity.

[ 30. April 2016, 08:19: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

My understanding was that weddings were not celebrated in Lent because of the no sex in Lent rule, which applies from Ash Wednesday until after one has received one's Easter Communion, with the one exception of Refreshment Sunday - maybe that's why its called Mothering Sunday [Snigger]

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
If by "church", you mean conducted by clergy, yes a ceremony can be outdoors, and it does not have to be on church property either.
But would it have "legal" or "civil" validity? Or would it basically be a "blessing"?

In Britain it would be the latter ... weddings can only be legal if carried out in registered buildings. (I'm not sure if that would extend, say, to the gardens or churchyard of a church, though).

The Archbishop of Canterbury could issue a Special Licence for a wedding to take place outdoors (or anywhere for that matter).

[ 30. April 2016, 13:32: Message edited by: Corvo ]

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
My understanding was that weddings were not celebrated in Lent because of the no sex in Lent rule, which applies from Ash Wednesday until after one has received one's Easter Communion, with the one exception of Refreshment Sunday - maybe that's why its called Mothering Sunday

That rule can be waived in the event of urgent pastoral need, such as terminal illness for a close relative or close friend (or even if that apples to the bride or groom) and it is more urgent than leaving it until Lent is over.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
My understanding was that weddings were not celebrated in Lent because of the no sex in Lent rule, which applies from Ash Wednesday until after one has received one's Easter Communion, with the one exception of Refreshment Sunday - maybe that's why its called Mothering Sunday

From the Episcopal Cafe:

quote:
There’s an old joke about a newly married couple whose wedding night (and the next few) are not quite what the bride had envisioned. The groom explains that it is Lent. The bride’s comeback is, “To whom is it lent and for how long?”

I'll get my purple coat...

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Perhaps I move in the wrong circles, but I've never heard that all, rather than those who have chosen this particular discipline, are required to abstain from marital relations for the whole of Lent.

Does the birthrate noticeably fall around December? Are couples required to explain themselves if they have babies around that time?

A few years ago, somebody claimed to have carried out research that it could have a contraceptive effect if the man had had a hot bath shortly beforehand. Somebody else queried whether that meant having hot baths was sinful, or whether it was only sinful if the bath was with an explicit intentio fertilitatem reductione.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Can you have a church wedding out of doors in Australia?

It differs from diocese to diocese. A former bishop of Grafton Diocese, for example, forbade it entirely, mandating that all weddings must take place in a consecrated building. Just after he had left however, to return to parish priesthood, he was asked to take the wedding of a famous NZ/OZ filmstar with a penchant for throwing telephones. He returned to his former diocese, quickly consecrated the filmstar's alleged chapel, and conducted the ceremony.

No hypocrisy there, of course.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

That might be a rule in a diocese, but the location of the ceremony has no bearing on its validity as a marriage. No need to ask for a special licence to have an outdoor service, kowtowing to the ABC. As a matter of law, the validity depends only upon the authorisation of the celebrant.

I can't think how many Anglican weddings we've attended over the years conducted on a country property owned by the family of either bride or groom.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Does the birthrate noticeably fall around December? Are couples required to explain themselves if they have babies around that time?

Historically there is some fascinating stuff about the preferred months for marriage and how this interfaces with the survival in the folk memory of the Advent and Lent proscriptions of pre-reformation times.

Kussmaul, A general view of the rural economy of England 1538-1840. CUP.

Previews here Kussmaul

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0